Be among the very first to wish Sam Johnson a happy retirement... and have some fun at his expense
John Lingenfelder for Congress has released a new program to highlight the failures of his opponent Sam Johnson in the Texas 3rd. http://www.retiresam.com is a way to send Sam Johnson your own well wishes that will be hand delivered by the campaign to Sam's Congressional office!
In the last five (5) years, these Organizations wouldn't mind seeing Sam retire. See their ratings of him:
Military Officers Association of America - 0% - 2009
Alliance for Retired Americans - 10% - 2009
The American Geriatrics Society - F - 2007-2008
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association - 0% - 2005-2006
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby - 0% - 2009
National Association of Social Workers - 0% - 2007
The Retired Enlisted Association - 7% - 2006
Disabled American Veterans - 0% - 2005
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America- D+ - 2006
National Latino Congreso/William C. Vel‡squez Institute - 0% - 2007-2009
NARAL Pro-Choice America - 0%0 2009
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 0 0% - 2007-2008
United Fresh Produce Association - 0% - 2007
National Farmers Union - 14% - 2007-2008
The Humane Society Legislative Fund - 0% - 2009
Americans for Fair Taxation - 0% - 2008
League of Women Voters - 25% - 2007
U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce - 0% - 2006
National Organization for Women - 7% - 2007-2008
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law - 6% - 2009
American Library Association - 0% - 2009
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People - 12% - 2009
American Civil Liberties Union - 22% - 2007-2008
Arab American Institute - 0 - 2007-2008
Human Rights Campaign - 0% - 2007-2008
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights - 7% - 2007
Drug Policy Alliance Network - 0% - 2007-2008
American Association of University Women - 0%- 2009
National Education Association - F - 2009
Association For Supervision and Curriculum Development - 0% - 2007
National Association of Elementary School Principals - 25% - 2007
Latin America Working Group - 0% - 2008
Campaign for America's Future - 0% - 2005-2006
Environment America - 13% - 2009
Republicans for Environmental Protection - 0% - 2007-2008
The Children's Health Fund - 0% - 2009
Council for a Livable World - 0% - 2007-2008
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - 0% - 2007-2008
U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - 3 - 2007-2008
Latin America Working Group - 10% - 2007
Church World Service - 33% - 2006
American Nurses Association - 0% - 2009
American Public Health Association - 11% - 2009
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology - 0% - 2009
Association of University Centers on Disabilities - 0%- 2009
Academy of General Dentistry - 0 - 2008
National Breast Cancer Coalition - 0% - 2007-2008
Saint Joseph Health System - 0% - 2007-2008
American Academy of Family Physicians - 0% - 2007
American Academy of Emergency Medicine - 0% - 2005-2006
American Hospital Association - 11% - 2005-2006
National Rural Health Association - 0% - 2005-2006
American Immigration Lawyers Association - 0% - 2006
AFL-CIO - 5% - 2009
American Federation of Government Employees - 0% - 2009
Federally Employed Women - 20% - 2009
Latin America Working Group - 0% - 2008
Service Employees International Union - 0% - 2008
Utility Workers Union of America - 0% - 2008
United Food & Commercial Workers - 7% - 2007-2008
United Auto Workers - 0% - 2007
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - 0% - 2006
Transportation Communications Union - 0% - 2006
Source: votesmart.org
Also if you have not checked out John's new website it is at www.JohnforTexas.com
Rep. Edwards spoke on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning. In reply to a caller complaining about the influence of outside money on political campaigns and electing our members of Congress, the host jumped in to comment on her proposal for a constitutional amendment on the subject. I was not aware of that. HJ Res 74 was introduced on Feb. 2, 2010, and has 24 co-sponsors, all Dems. Rep. Edwards is also among the 141 House members co-sponsoring the Fair Elections Now Act.
Viewers learned that she is now heading an ActBlue fundraiser for 13 Dems in the DCCC's Red-to-Blue program. This is from the ActBlue page:
These candidates earned a spot in the program by surpassing demanding fundraising goals and skillfully demonstrating to voters that they will work to create jobs and stand up for the middle class.
My district's candidate, Dan Seals, is among the 13.
From 2006-2008, the DCCC made $14,421,187 in independent expenditures on behalf of elven members of the House of Representatives who are currently either "hard no" votes, or confirmed Stupak bloc, on the health reform bill. Those eleven members of Congress are Adler (NJ-03), Arcuri (NY-24), Bright (AL-02), Childers (MS-01), Donnelly (IN-02), Driehaus (OH-01), Griffith (AL-05), Kissell (NC-08), Kratovil (MD-01), Minnick (ID-01), and Shuler (NC-11).
Additionally, the DCCC spent $21,328,946 on eleven members who are currently undecided: Altmire (PA-04), Carney (PA-10), Dahlkemper (PA-03), Ellsworth (IN-08), Kosmas (FL-24), Hill (IN-09), Kanjorksi (PA-11), Mitchell (AZ-05), Perriello (VA-05), Space (OH-18) and Teague (NM-02).
The DCCC also spent a pile of money on the special elections featuring Travis Childers, Bill Foster, Scott Murphy and Bill Owens in 2008-2009, although I could not find exact figures on how much they spent. A safe assumption is that another $10,000,000 was spent in those campaigns, upping the overall total to around $45,000,000 on Democrats who are opposed, or undecided, on the health reform bill.
Furthermore, the DCCC spent $6,703,898 on just Dahlkemper, Donnelly, Driehaus and Ellsworth, all of whom are either Stupak bloc or "Stupak curious."
And to top it off, the DCCC is still actively raising money for nine "no" votes, (Adler, Arcuri, Bright, Childers, Driehuas, Kratovil, McMahon, Minnick, and Nye) along with a slew of undecideds (Carney, Dahlkemper, Foster, Hill, Kosmas, Mitchell, Scott Murphy, Owens, Perriello, Space and Teague).
The DCCC is the easily the largest source of funds for the Democrats who are holding up the health reform bill. And, they show no signs of turning off the spigot for 2010.
There is a lot of buzz in the blogosphere about how Progressives in Congress are bad negotiators. I'd have to say that serving as the Democratic Party serving as the primary source of funding source for the opposition to its legislative agenda takes bad negotiation up a couple orders of magnitude.
Oh yeah--and two committee chairs, Peterson and Skelton, oppose the health reform bill, too. Sweet.
from Speaker Nancy Pelosi
reply-to dccc@dccc.org
to Adam Bink
date Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM
subject Send your Holiday Wishes to President Obama
Adam --
As we celebrate the holiday season, I wanted to say thank you for making 2009 a year for the history books when it comes to America's progress.
This holiday season, let's show President Obama that we support him just as strongly as we did on Inauguration Day.
Please sign our Holiday Card to President Obama and the First Family and forward it to five of your friends. You can also include a personal message and upload a photograph of your own family.
Send a card to the President!
Our extraordinary progress this year would not be possible without dedicated grassroots Democrats like you. You worked every day to put Main Street first, to create millions of clean energy jobs, and to make health care affordable for the middle class.
Unfortunately, your efforts have incited the anger of our Republican opponents who prefer to return to the failed policies of the last eight years. This year, we have seen one vicious and false attack after another, calling our agenda everything from "government rationing of health care" to even hanging effigies of our Democratic Members of Congress.
Yet each day you prove that no attack by Republicans and their special interest allies can stop the change we are delivering for America's middle class families and the hope we are bringing for brighter future for our country.
Please sign our Holiday Card to President Obama and the First Family and forward it to five of your friends. You can also include a personal message and upload a photograph of your own family.
Have a happy and healthy holiday season with your families and thank you again for making 2009 a year of historic progress for our nation and the world.
Best regards,
Nancy
Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
P.S. Please sign our Holiday Card to President Obama and forward it to five of your friends. You can also upload a photograph for the President to see.
Just to take advantage of this important opportunity, I did indeed click through to sign a Holiday Card to President Obama and his family. Here is what I wrote:
Dear President Obama,
Thanks for no help in Maine, no real support for the public option, hiring folks like Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina to push Congressional leaders to cave to Joe Lieberman and Blue Dogs, and caving on core Democratic initiatives of late, such as re-importation of cheaper prescription drugs. I am appreciative of the smaller initiatives you have undertaken, but in 2010, please stop throwing progressive allies under the bus and screwing up major progressive initiatives.
As a holiday gift, I am enclosing a gift certificate to a semester-long class on Negotiation 101. I hope you put it to good use.
Last night, 23 Democrats voted against providing 36 million Americans with health insurance while reducing the deficit, but in favor of the Stupak amendment to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women. Those 23 Democrats are:
Jason Altmire (PA-4); Bobby Bright (AL-2); John Barrow (GA-12); John Boccieri (OH-16); Dan Boren (OK-2); Ben Chandler (KY-6); Travis Childers (MS-1); Artur Davis (AL-7); Lincoln Davis (TN-4); Bart Gordon; Parker Griffith (AL-5); Tim Holden (PA-17); Jim Marshall (GA-8); Jim Matheson (UT-2); Mike McIntyre (NC-7); Charlie Melancon (LA-3); Collin Peterson (MN-7); Mike Ross (AR-4); Heath Shuler (NC-11); Ike Skelton (MO-4); John Tanner (TN-8); Gene Taylor (MS-4); Harry Teague (NM-2)
In 2008, more than $1 out of every $12 the DCCC spent on electing Democratic House members went to electing one of these Democrats. Based on expenditure reports compiled by Swing State Project, here are the details:
Voted to restrict reproductive rights, but voted against the budget, climate change legislation, and health care reform Childers: $296,766.97
Total: $2,605,113.00, or $0.034 of every $1.00 the DCCC used on independent expenditures.
Voted to restrict reproductive rights, but voted against health care reform Boccieri: $2,461,828.65
Teague: $1,535,780.01
Total: $6,602,721.66, or $0.086 of every $1.00 the DCCC used on independent expenditures.
These Democratic members of Congress are a net drag on progressive efforts. Not only do they vote to pass regressive legislation, and not only to they vote against any meaningful progressive legislation, but they vacuum up Democratic money in the process.
It does not matter that these members of Congress are from supposedly conservative districts. What matters is that your money is being spent to elect these people to Congress.
If you donate to the DCCC, then your money is being spent to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women, and against health care reform. In 2010, an even larger percentage of DCCC money is likely to be spent defending the 23 Democrats who voted against health care reform, but who voted in favor of restricting reproductive rights for low-income women.
If Republicans held those seats, there would absolutely be no difference in the outcome of legislation in the House. However, at least more Democratic money would be spent on more progressive candidates. Giving to these candidates is worse than a waste of money--it actually has a net negative effect on progressivism.
It is time for progressives to pass a Stupak amendment of our own. We need to stop giving money to organizations that spend money on John Boccieri, Bobby Bright, Travis Childers, Parker Griffith, and Harry Teague. We are better off without spending a single dime on most, if not all, of these 23 Democrats.
In a statement likely to intensify the GOP assault on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reign, a first-term Democratic "blue dog" congressman said that he would not vote to make her the top House Democrat again. Rep. Parker Griffith, a former oncologist from Alabama, told a town hall
meeting this week that Pelosi is too divisive to be speaker. "I would not vote for her [again]," he added. "Someone that divisive and that polarizing cannot bring us together."
Voting for Speaker is the first vote of every Congress, and only two choices are offered: a Democrat and a Republican. Griffith just said he won't vote for the Democratic option, so I guess he will either abstain or vote Republican. No matter which is the case, this means that on the off chance Parker Griffith is still in Congress in 2011, Democrats will actually need 219 seats to control the House. Even if Griffth votes for a different Democrat in a write-in, it would still have the impact of an abstention and Republicans now only need 217 to force partial control over the chamber.
In addition to voting against the stimulus, the budget, the climate change bill, cramdown and, in only a little while, health care, Griffith won't even vote for a Democrat to control Congress. Is there any possible reason left to support this guy? I have heard time and time again how we have to support any Democrat over any Republican because all Democrats members of Congress vote for Democrats to control Congress. This gives us control of the legislative calendar, committees, subpoenas, vast corporate PAC donations, etc.
Well, not in Parker Griffith's case.
Given Griffith's statements, as long as he is the Democratic nominee in AL-05, it is a net negative for the party that Democrats control the Alabama fifth congressional district. The district is a ridiculous R+12, and will could very well be wiped out by redistricting in 2012 anyway. Most importantly of all, it is held by Parker Griffith. As such, it plays no role in maintaining a Democratic majority, much less a progressive majority, over the long-term.
There are, however, two roles it does play. First, Parker Griffith offers bipartisan cover, both in votes and in media quotes, to everything Republicans are doing. Second, If the the the DCCC spent $1,076,370 electing the guy. What a waste of money. That is money that could have been spent in any of the other 434 congressional districts where the Democratic nominee would actually vote for Democrats to control Congress.
If we get the money back, it can be spent electing and defending Democrats who are actually worth something to progressive, or even Democratic, causes. Right now, the only groups Parker Griffith assists--in terms of money, votes and media--are Republicans, conservatives, and corporations.
Collin Peterson is getting a lot of credit, both on Open Left and elsewhere, for holding up the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. However, it needs to be pointed out that Peterson is only able to do this through anti-climate change solidarity from every single Democrat on the Agriculture Committee. All 28 Democrats on that committee are refusing to pass pre-weakened climate change legislation unless the legislation gets even weaker.
Further, it needs to be pointed out that 13 of the 28 Democrats on the Agriculture Committee were first elected to Congress in 2008 or later, 3 were first elected to Congress in 2006, and 3 more were first elected to Congress in 2004. Still further, many of these are the same Democratic candidates who received the lion's share of Democratic Party Committee spending, and who also received the most progressive, small donor money from Act Blue.
In other words, the climate change bill is being held up by Democratic newbies in the House who received enormous amounts of donations from progressive activists. Here is a chart showing just how much money we are talking about: $18,508,225.
Agriculture Committee Democrats, Frosh and Sophomores
Last week, Change Congress pulled together over 50 national and state progressive bloggers and reformers on an "open letter" to the DSCC and DCCC -- calling them out for an embarrassingly fake nod toward combating special interests...adopting Barack Obama's fundraising rules for 1 day.
Last October, Representative Michele "Crazy as Steve King" Bachmann (MN-06) disgraced herself on "Hardball" and sparked a ridiculously successful fundraising drive for her Democratic opponent, El Tinklenberg. I was impressed by the enthusiasm and kicked in a few bucks for Tinklenberg myself, but I was dismayed to see bloggers continue to help him raise money even after he'd raised more than $750,000 and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had promised to spend an additional $1 million in his district. Within a few days of Bachmann's notorious comments, Tinklenberg had more money than he needed to run a solid media and GOTV campaign during the final two weeks before the election.
A fellow Iowa blogger sent me this piece from CQ Politics about how Tinklenberg's campaign committee was the largest donor to the DCCC in March, giving a total of $250,000:
You may recall that his Republican opponent was Rep. Michele Bachmann, whose mid-October comment that Obama "may have anti-American views" angered Democrats nationwide and spawned an avalanche of contributions to Tinklenberg in the waning days of a campaign that Bachmann won by 46 percent to 43 percent, with a third-party candidate taking 10 percent.
Apparently the money was coming in too fast for Tinklenberg to spend completely: he raised $3 million for his campaign, of which $1.9 million came in after October 15, and had $453,000 in leftover campaign funds at the end of 2008 and $184,000 at the end of March.
I just heard Michelle Bernard on MSNBC laud Obama's Rahm Emanuel pick because he'll be able to reign in the left. Marc Ambinder echoes this point: "Advisers say that Obama has sent a not-so-subtle message to Congress: President-Elect Obama will not cede much agenda-setting ground to liberals."
So get ready to be kicked in the face, which progressives have clearlyargued iswhy Rahmis theideal pick, ushering in a new spirit of take-no-prisoners Democrats. He'll also effectively protect Obama from attacks from the right, since they'll be way too scared of him to mention Emanuel's tenure on the board of Freddie Mac.
It appears that Chris Van Hollen is putting himself up for caucus chair, taking the place of Rahm Emanuel should Rahm go to the White House and become White House Chief of Staff. I would very much like to see Van Hollen ascend the leadership ladder in the House, for two reasons.
One, at the DCCC, he was able to run the organization effectively and work very well with all types of groups. Operationally speaking, the committee basically did as well as it did in 2006, pushing into tougher districts and coming away with a respectable 20 seats or so (pending recounts, etc). Unlike in 2006, though, Van Hollen's DCCC was able to meld seemlessly with a whole variety of groups. There was no sniping at George Soros, Moveon, blogs, or liberals. His organization just worked, and worked well, with fewer stompings in primaries and nasty machismo bullshit.
Two, Van Hollen is a leader who I think will be more progressive than most of us realize. It's not just his policy positions, which are probably just borne of representing a liberal district, it's his instincts I respect. During the Donna Edwards primary, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer both endorsed Al Wynn. Van Hollen, from the neighboring district, did not. And in fact, many constituents in Wynn's district actually though that they were represented by Van Hollen, since the district lines had been recently redrawn, and they liked and respected him. Now, when Van Hollen sat this one out, it was a clear signal that he wasn't just going to protect one of the worst members of Congress, even though the rest of the Democratic leadership did.
This matters. Van Hollen refused to perpetuate business as usual, and we need more of that in the House. At the same time, he's an extremely effective organizer and operator within the caucus, as shown by his DCCC work, and he's got a savvy political sense.
From 2005-2006, we were treated to story after story after story on Rahm Emanuel, the tough talking cursing Chair of the DCCC who had taken on the impossible task of bringing the Democrats into the majority. Democrats ended up picking up more than 30 seats, and Emanuel got huge amounts of credit. These stories had lines in them like:
To those who expected a bragging pol, [Emanuel] was quite the subdued victor. He seemed peaceful -- as peaceful as a slow-moving shark.
On Saturday a fundraising solicitation arrived in the mail from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. It asked me to confirm delivery of the enclosed "supporter card" within ten days, and also to "help keep my 2008 re-election campaign on the road to victory" with a special contribution.
Funny, I wasn't aware that Harkin needed any extra help. Everyone in the election forecasting business has labeled this seat safe for him. The available polling shows Harkin with a comfortable lead.
Not long ago, I ran across this comment from a dedicated Foster volunteer and supporter:
This will be unpopular... (0.00 / 0)
...but you know I'm going to say it anyway!
I am much more interested in what goes on in Northern IL than I am in what happens downstate. With work, I get more than my fill of politics in Springfield and the rest of the cornfields in IL. I just really don't care what is happening in politics in Podunk, IL unless it's really sexy and scandalous. Otherwise, I am bored. (emphasis added)
by: bridgetdooley @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 22:18:39 PM CST
As anyone who lives in Illinois knows, anything not in the City or collar counties is routinely considered "downstate" (aka "Podunk" to Ms. Dooley) even if it's north of Chicago. The distinction here, if you are local, is that Kane and (parts of) Kendall, being collar counties, are typically considered part of the greater Chicagoland region, while everything west of the urbanized strip on the far east of IL-14 really qualifies as "downstate."
There's an interesting race shaping up Ohio 5th, a mostly rural district which voted for Bush in 2004 by a 61 point margin. The region has been devastated by job losses, with outsourcing and trade crushing the local economy. It is at the same time a very socially conservative place, with the largest city Bowling Green having only about 30k people. The region shows signs of progressivism, with Ohio's first utility-sized wind farm. According to wikipedia, "there are four turbines that are 257 feet tall. These turbines generate up to 7.2 megawatts of power--enough to supply electricity for some 3,000 residents. Located about six miles from the city, the turbines can be seen for miles and have become a local attraction."
Democrat Robin Weirauch is running a spirited campaign with lots of help from institutional sources. It is a very uphill battle in OH-05, but these numbers are stunning, if there is any truth to them.
"I've heard that there are internal polls that show a 3-point race," said Ohio Democratic consultant Dale Butland. "It would be shocking. If that district goes Democratic, then there would literally be no district in this state that would be safe for Republicans."
A Republican insider with knowledge of the district said the special election "is easily within a 55-45" percent margin. "I think the DCCC knows that, otherwise there's no way they would have put the money into it."
The only public poll so far in the race showed Latta leading Weirauch 50 percent to 36 percent in early November. Weirauch's showing in that poll was lower than 43 percent she received in her 2006 challenge to the late Rep. Paul Gillmor (R), who died in September.
Weirauch is running on a fair trade ticket, pairing both a harsh stance against immigration (bad!) with a stance against unfair trade agreements in a heavy union district.
Latta has gotten endorsements from conservative groups: the NRA, National Right to Life, NFIB, Farm Bureau, etc. The Republicans are pouring resources into this one. If this district goes even remotely close to our way, Democrats should expect another wave in 2008. If Weirauch gets blown out by a larger than 61-39 margin, we'll know we're in trouble. Anything in between keeps us in our current muddle.
STATE BLOGS
